You know you're in Malaysia when...
...you walk through the checkpoint with nothing but a grin, a knowing nod and a tap to the pocket to indicate to the officer that you are indeed a Malaysian who cares nothing for procedure, unlike the obedient Singaporeans who took the escalator and joined the queue.
...you are greeted by men in grubby shirts pointing at you and demanding, "KL? Genting?Damansara" as you get off an inter-city bus at Pudu.
...your hairdresser tells you his English name is Ajes (like "ages", and seems to be a corruption of Ajax), but then asks you, "Awak suka straight atau curls?" and then answers a phone call in Cantonese.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Fisherman
Although I can see him still.
The freckled man who goes
To a grey place on a hill
In grey Connemara clothes
At dawn to cast his flies,
It's long since I began
To call up to the eyes
This wise and simple man.
All day I'd looked in the face
What I had hoped 'twould be
To write for my own race
And the reality;
The living men that I hate,
The dead man that I loved,
The craven man in his seat,
The insolent unreproved,
And no knave brought to book
Who has won a drunken cheer,
The witty man and his joke
Aimed at the commonest ear,
The clever man who cries
The catch-cries of the clown,
The beating down of the wise
And great Art beaten down.
Maybe a twelvemonth since
Suddenly I began,
In scorn of this audience,
Imagining a man,
And his sun-freckled face,
And grey Connemara cloth,
Climbing up to a place
Where stone is dark under froth,
And the down-turn of his wrist
When the flies drop in the stream;
A man who does not exist,
A man who is but a dream;
And cried, 'Before I am old
I shall have written him one
poem maybe as cold
And passionate as the dawn
~ W.B Yeats
The cold and passionate poetry of Yeats. Writing...is it trapped within the circle of the self?Do we all secretly write to that fisherman in our mind? Writing: cold and distant in its reliance on syntax and logic, the formalities of poetic structure, to communicate passion. A poem as cold and passionate as the dawn. That which is concrete dreams of the abstract.
The freckled man who goes
To a grey place on a hill
In grey Connemara clothes
At dawn to cast his flies,
It's long since I began
To call up to the eyes
This wise and simple man.
All day I'd looked in the face
What I had hoped 'twould be
To write for my own race
And the reality;
The living men that I hate,
The dead man that I loved,
The craven man in his seat,
The insolent unreproved,
And no knave brought to book
Who has won a drunken cheer,
The witty man and his joke
Aimed at the commonest ear,
The clever man who cries
The catch-cries of the clown,
The beating down of the wise
And great Art beaten down.
Maybe a twelvemonth since
Suddenly I began,
In scorn of this audience,
Imagining a man,
And his sun-freckled face,
And grey Connemara cloth,
Climbing up to a place
Where stone is dark under froth,
And the down-turn of his wrist
When the flies drop in the stream;
A man who does not exist,
A man who is but a dream;
And cried, 'Before I am old
I shall have written him one
poem maybe as cold
And passionate as the dawn
~ W.B Yeats
The cold and passionate poetry of Yeats. Writing...is it trapped within the circle of the self?Do we all secretly write to that fisherman in our mind? Writing: cold and distant in its reliance on syntax and logic, the formalities of poetic structure, to communicate passion. A poem as cold and passionate as the dawn. That which is concrete dreams of the abstract.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Homosexuality: Immoral = Criminal?
Secular is defined as "Belonging to the world and its affairs as distinguished from the church and religion; civil, lay, temporal. Chiefly used as a negative term, with the meaning non-ecclesiastical, non-religious, or non-sacred." in the Oxford English Dictionary.
In response to a friend's Facebook note, which included above quote:
Chiefly using the American context, but discussing decriminalization of homosexuality rather than right to gay marriages, which would come after.
From a semantic view: One problem with this debate is that secular vs. religious is often falsely dichotomized as if religion has nothing to do with the secular and the secular has nothing to do with religion. Obviously not the case as they share the same space (despite rhetorical attempts to prove it otherwise, one simply cannot discount the fact that a country like the US has a majority of people believing in God and religious as well as non-religious politicians). Separating church and state does not necessarily mean that politics must be carried out in a religious vacuum, as if even mentioning Christianity or Islam is taboo. As OED points out, though, secularism means that the church would not be able to impose its standard of the sacred and the profane on a secular world that does not recognize it. On the flipside, the state also does not impose on religion, leaving religious institutions free to establish their own criteria for morality within their bounds, such as choosing not to employ gay pastors or conduct or recognize gay marriages. This is Obama's point when he is personally against abortion and homosexuality, but politically makes allowance for it, as the non-religious demand the right to choose a moral code which, though for the most part grounded in the Judeo-Christian code, departs from it on the natural order of sexuality.
My personal take on the homosexuality issue in particular: Yes, homosexuality is wrong according to my faith, but decriminalization of it probably does more to change public perception of the person making the choice on that law than of homosexuals/lesbians in general. The real source of influence over public perception is in the mass media and performing arts, which are allowed to freely celebrate same-sex relationships. In the US specifically, one suffers from a cognitive dissonance in the sharp split between these major voices of authority: state, religion and mass media. The question is: What difference would decrimininalization or recognition of civil unions between homosexuals make in public perception? Would you really get a slippery slide down the morality drain? People are or are not averse to homosexuality according to their religion or their practices, not according to state policy. Anyone already averse to it is more likely to change their stand from influence through mass media, friends or performing arts (rather than decriminalization), all of which the state does not regulate. You can only regulate media influence in a religious state, such as Malaysia where a movie like Brokeback Mountain is banned/heavily censored (to the point that one may as well ban it).
One does not have a direct view of homosexuality as criminal. One views it as immoral, thus criminal...if, in a secular state, in the process of reaching such a conclusion, one can give convincing proof of the criminality of homosexuality beyond the boundaries of sacred/profane, then one may place it under the penal code. If not, then the conclusion does not stand as rational for people who make up their own moral code from shared beliefs rather than inherit their morality from God. This is the reality of a secular politics, despite the presence of religion. I sure wish the entire world believed that God is God, but they don't, and putting homosexuals in jail, denying the the rights of common citizens, is not going to change that.
Coming from a religious state, I don't really have to bother about making a stand, but it's always bothered me; what if I were put in the difficult position of making such a decision? Would I be able to sign a decriminalization act with a clear conscience? Or in a parliamentary democracy, where I would have to vote for or against a charter of decriminalization, what would I vote? Right now I would vote decriminalization in a secular state, though I would never push the agenda (though arguably this discussion is pushing it) or stand in solidarity with gay rights lobbyists, on the grounds of religious differences (one can be a Christian who struggles with homosexual tendencies, but one cannot be a Christian who also believes homosexuality is right).
Anyone have an argument against my stand? What are the projected (spiritual and social) consequences of decriminalizing homosexuality or allowing homosexual couples legal rights to each other?What would your vote be and why?
In response to a friend's Facebook note, which included above quote:
Chiefly using the American context, but discussing decriminalization of homosexuality rather than right to gay marriages, which would come after.
From a semantic view: One problem with this debate is that secular vs. religious is often falsely dichotomized as if religion has nothing to do with the secular and the secular has nothing to do with religion. Obviously not the case as they share the same space (despite rhetorical attempts to prove it otherwise, one simply cannot discount the fact that a country like the US has a majority of people believing in God and religious as well as non-religious politicians). Separating church and state does not necessarily mean that politics must be carried out in a religious vacuum, as if even mentioning Christianity or Islam is taboo. As OED points out, though, secularism means that the church would not be able to impose its standard of the sacred and the profane on a secular world that does not recognize it. On the flipside, the state also does not impose on religion, leaving religious institutions free to establish their own criteria for morality within their bounds, such as choosing not to employ gay pastors or conduct or recognize gay marriages. This is Obama's point when he is personally against abortion and homosexuality, but politically makes allowance for it, as the non-religious demand the right to choose a moral code which, though for the most part grounded in the Judeo-Christian code, departs from it on the natural order of sexuality.
My personal take on the homosexuality issue in particular: Yes, homosexuality is wrong according to my faith, but decriminalization of it probably does more to change public perception of the person making the choice on that law than of homosexuals/lesbians in general. The real source of influence over public perception is in the mass media and performing arts, which are allowed to freely celebrate same-sex relationships. In the US specifically, one suffers from a cognitive dissonance in the sharp split between these major voices of authority: state, religion and mass media. The question is: What difference would decrimininalization or recognition of civil unions between homosexuals make in public perception? Would you really get a slippery slide down the morality drain? People are or are not averse to homosexuality according to their religion or their practices, not according to state policy. Anyone already averse to it is more likely to change their stand from influence through mass media, friends or performing arts (rather than decriminalization), all of which the state does not regulate. You can only regulate media influence in a religious state, such as Malaysia where a movie like Brokeback Mountain is banned/heavily censored (to the point that one may as well ban it).
One does not have a direct view of homosexuality as criminal. One views it as immoral, thus criminal...if, in a secular state, in the process of reaching such a conclusion, one can give convincing proof of the criminality of homosexuality beyond the boundaries of sacred/profane, then one may place it under the penal code. If not, then the conclusion does not stand as rational for people who make up their own moral code from shared beliefs rather than inherit their morality from God. This is the reality of a secular politics, despite the presence of religion. I sure wish the entire world believed that God is God, but they don't, and putting homosexuals in jail, denying the the rights of common citizens, is not going to change that.
Coming from a religious state, I don't really have to bother about making a stand, but it's always bothered me; what if I were put in the difficult position of making such a decision? Would I be able to sign a decriminalization act with a clear conscience? Or in a parliamentary democracy, where I would have to vote for or against a charter of decriminalization, what would I vote? Right now I would vote decriminalization in a secular state, though I would never push the agenda (though arguably this discussion is pushing it) or stand in solidarity with gay rights lobbyists, on the grounds of religious differences (one can be a Christian who struggles with homosexual tendencies, but one cannot be a Christian who also believes homosexuality is right).
Anyone have an argument against my stand? What are the projected (spiritual and social) consequences of decriminalizing homosexuality or allowing homosexual couples legal rights to each other?What would your vote be and why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)